Jump to content

Talk:Rideau Hall/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Chateau Laurier

I've removed this from the list of other official residences. I haven't researched it, but my gut feeling is that while Bennett may have lived at the Chateau Laurier, I doubt it would be what we consider an "official residence." If it was, it has to be inserted in a way that makes clear that it was formerly an official residence (since the others on the list are current). - Cafemusique 09:56, 19 December 2004 (UTC)

Palace?

Given the lengthy debate above over the content of the lead paragraph, I am going to be cautious and raise an issue here before editing the article. First, and in passing, the introductory sentence is quite awkward, and perhaps somehow could be broken down into two separate sentences (or improved by other means). I had to read it three times before I understood what it was trying to say -- I think the "where the palace is located" phrase tacked on the end is the source of the problem.

The main issue I wanted to raise, however, is the reference to the residence as a "palace". Struck me as very odd. I know there is a monarchist.ca source that calls it a palace (mind you, only in the title of the article - "Palace on the Rideau"), but I am not sure that the residence is typically considered or called a palace, nor do I see the official GG site refering to it as such (unless I missed it). My view is that we should pick a more appropriate and recognized term to describe the building. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know what else to call it without repeating "house" or "hall" 1000 times. I've certainly tried to avoid inferring that it is somehow officially designated as a palace, and only used the word as a synonym of "hall" or "official residence". Reading the opening sentence again, it does seem a bit clunky, perhaps trying to say too much in too limited a space(?). Miesianiacal (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it a "hall" and not a "palace"? Why not call any official royal residence a "palace"?

Just curious, seeing as it's essentially a royal palace...68.36.120.7 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Sentry at Gate with Fiset.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sentry at Gate with Fiset.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sentry at Gate with Fiset.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the area of Rideau Hall

This source says the Rideau Hall comprises 88 acres of grounds, but another source says that it comprises 79 acres. Which source is more reliable? Komitsuki (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Odd there is 2 different size's reported... it was built on 88 acres as per John Robert Colombo (1999). Mysteries of Ontario. Dundurn. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-88882-205-5. and in 1868, the government purchased it for $82,000 which price also included "88 acres" as per the records. I would say 88 is by far the most common number and most reliable. -- Moxy (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Architectural style

What is the exact architectural style of Rideau Hall? I want to cite this for the Korean version of this article. Komitsuki (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A user said that it is neoclassical. ([Portal_talk:Architecture#A_question|source]) Komitsuki (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rideau Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources overload

Aren't we over-doing it with 9 sources (all clumped together), for the Canadian monarch as official resident? GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I've already asked others for input. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Monarchial residence?

While it might be true that Rideau Hall is an official monarchial residence, this is such a relatively small part of the Hall's functions that it is not sensible to mention it so prominently, as if it were on par with the place's being the Governor General's residence. Visits to Canada by its monarchs from England are rare, and mostly spent touring. Regardless of what may be the case officially, practically the role of monarch's residence is slight. Even the referencing of this supposed fact, that the Hall is the monarch's official residence, is weak: It is mentioned in passing in an article about the 1939 visit by George VI. Authors sometimes get such details wrong. No official material that I can readily find makes any mention of Rideau Hall's being official residence of anyone besides the Governor General. If nothing else, this goes to show that the Hall's role as monarch's official residence, assuming it truly exists, is regarded as being of very slight importance -- too slight to bother mentioning. All considered, a mention lower down in the lead is generous. -- Lonewolf BC 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it the official residence of the Queen of Canada in Ottawa? Yes. Does the frequency of the Queen's personal presence affect this? No. Hillsborough Castle is resided in primarily by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, yet it remains EIIR's official residence in NI. The referenced text states: "...When Their Majesties walked into their Canadian residence..." [italics mine]. This was written by Gustave Lanctot, the official historian of the 1939 Royal Visit, and Dominion Archivist; I think he can be regarded as an authoriative source. I can also find somewhat less authoritative but still reliable sources that refer to Rideau Hall as the Queen's Canadian residence: Rideau, a company that has worked for the Office of the Governor General since 1912, calles Rideau Hall "...the official residence of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II..."; In 1996 Monarchy Canada magazine published an article by John Aimers in which Rideau Hall is described as "...The Queen's Ottawa Residence..." Further, by simple logic, if the Governor General is the Queen's direct personal representative, and lives in a home owned and paid for by the Crown, then the house is the Queen's main Canadian residence.
The present wording places the Governor General's use of the palace before the Monarch's; I think that is sufficient to impart, if it was even necessary to do so, that the Governor General is the primary user of the Hall. --G2bambino 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I might propose the following wording for the opening sentences, if they are to be altered:
Rideau Hall is a royal residence in Ottawa; it is the official seat of the Canadian Monarch in the national capital, but is primarily the official residence and principal workplace of the Sovereign's representative, the Governor General of Canada,[1] having served as such since Canadian Confederation in 1867.
--G2bambino 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks seem somewhat to miss the point: There are two linked issues here, which I think I had better distinguish more clearly. The first is whether Rideau Hall is really the official Canadian residence of the monarch. The second is, assuming the first to be true, how ought that be treated in the article.

The first is a matter of fact and determination of fact. Although I tend to think that it is true, I have some doubts about it, and would like to see it better referenced. Let us examine what sourcing has been given: In the referenced article by William Galbraith, he twice, in passing, calls Rideau Hall the "official Canadian residence" of the monarch, and once quotes Lanctot who likewise wrote "Canadian residence", though without "official", seemingly also in passing, though this is hard to judge surely from the brief quote. It does not necessarily follow from this that Rideau Hall is truely the official Canadian residence of the monarch. That was 1939; things could have changed since. The article is only peripherally concerned with the standing of Rideau Hall as a monarchial residence, and peripheral details are liable to be gotten wrong by any given author. (For that matter, sometimes a particular author is wrong even on some central point -- you can't believe everything you read.) Perhaps "official Canadian residence" merely reflects Galbraith's opinion on a moot point. Perhaps Galbraith's opinion is even biased or idiosyncratic. Perhaps either or both are true of Lanctot. Perhaps it is significant that Lanctot does not say "official". Perhaps he just means that the royals stayed at Rideau Hall during their visit, and were as at home there. (I don't think that is what he means, but it might be, given only the quoted bit.) All this is only to show that the article is not all that strong as a source for the putative fact. I do not suggest that it is probably wrong. On the contrary, if I had to bet on the matter, I'd put my money on its truth, not its falsehood. But I do say that its rightness is not as securely established as would be best. What is really wanted is an authoritative source that directly says that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the monarch (at least when the monarch is in the country), in the course of describing what Rideau Hall is (as against mentioning such a thing in passing while covering some other subject). As for the other two sources you give, one is by a hard-core monarchist, so it plainly cannot be taken as objective. The other is a corporate webpage that says that Rideau Hall is a monarchial residence, without even mentioning the Governor General. This highly idiosyncratic presentation strongly suggests a likewise biased source.

The second issue is editorial: If Rideau Hall is, among other things, the official Canadian residence of the monarch (at least when the monarch is in the country), what weight and prominence ought be given to that in an encyclopedia article on Rideau Hall. Standard authoritative sources on Rideau Hall don't bother to mention any such aspect; they say straightforwardly that Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Governor General. Practically, the Queen (and her father before her) have rarely ever been there. The Governor General, by contrast, actually resides there and ordinarily carries out duties there. Both standard sources and practical realities say that the monarchial-residence aspect is of slight importance beside the ordinary functions of the Hall, because it so rarely comes into play. Putting it up by the principal function of the Hall, that of being the Governor General's residence, implies a comparable importance. Putting it before that principal function, as you've done here and on other WP pages, is even worse, of course. The fact is interesting, but not very important in relation to Rideau Hall. So it deserves mention, but further down in the lead, and otherwise in such a way as does not inflate its importance.

This is of a kind with the "Canada is a kingdom" issue you stirred up with your inaugural edit as Gbambino06. It's not just a factual matter of whether the statement is true, but an editorial matter of how to present that fact in the article so as not to create false impressions about it. -- Lonewolf BC 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem a tad bit odd to put the Governor General before the Monarch - way before the Monarch? The GG occupies Rideau Hall beacuse s/he is the representative of the Queen in Canada; the Queen doesn't stay there when in Ottawa because it is the GG's house. Thus, the sentence now reflects the constitutional order of things - Queen first, GG second - yet gives sufficient weight to the fact that the GG is the usual occupant. It could be further finessed, of course. Perhaps something like:
Rideau Hall is a royal residence in Ottawa, being the official seat of the Canadian Monarch in the national capital; as such, and because the Monarch usually resides in the United Kingdom, Ridau Hall is primarily the official residence and principal workplace of the Sovereign's representative, the Governor General of Canada,[1] having served as such since Canadian Confederation in 1867.
--G2bambino 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The Official website of the Goverment of Canada describes Rideau Hall, as the 'official resident of the Governor General' (not the Queen's official residence). As this site takes precedence over others, for the Canadian Government; I'll make the proper edits. GoodDay 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
See this link Government of Canada, lists Rideau Hall as the GG's official residence (only). GoodDay 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's the Governor General's official residence; stating that it is the Monarch's residence does not preculde this fact. --G2bambino 18:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Elizabeth II's official residence is Buckingham Palace. Governors-General residences throughout the Commonwealth Realms are her 'quest residences'. I'm really too disinterested to argue though, so I won't revert. GoodDay 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Buckingham Palace is one of Elizabeth II's official residences. She cannot be a guest in any of her own countries. --G2bambino 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If there were any substance to this "official residence of the monarch" stuff, it would be mentioned somewhere in official materials, not just in, for instance, webpages written by a former Grand whatever-he-was of the Monarchist League of Canada. The low quality and extreme scarcity of any reference to such a supposed fact, and the complete lack of any mention of anything of the kind in any official source indicates that it is a crank opinion. Wikipedia does not include crank opinions as if they were facts. Statements such as "She [the Queen] cannot be a guest in any of her own countries", are obvious "original research". -- Lonewolf BC 02:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Three cites that meet WP:RS state Rideau Hall is the residence of both the Monarch of Canada and the Governor General of Canada; as such, the content meets WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. For all your bombast about "official sources," you haven't looked through any besides what's on Government of Canada webpages - hardly a detailed search. Until you can prove that Galbraith (a Gov't of Canada information officer), Lanctot (Gov't of Canada head archivist and Canadian historian), and Aimers (head of the Monarchist League of Canada, who's piece, by the way, was originally published in a regularly issued, edited magazine) are all either wrong or unreliable, then you have no grounds on which to remove the particular text. --G2bambino 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'Government of Canada' official website, is the most aurthoritive website on the Canadian Government. It describes 'Rideau Hall' as the GG's official residence (not the Queen's). Let's go with the 'most' authoritive source. GoodDay 15:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'Government of Canada' official website, is the most aurthoritive website on the Canadian Government. Personal opinion.
It describes 'Rideau Hall' as the GG's official residence Which is not in dispute.
...not the Queen's. Because they leave out a fact doesn't mean we have to. --G2bambino 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
..Leave out a fact...? That's your opinon, not the Canadian Government's. Shouldn't the Canadian Government decide for itself, who's official residence Rideau Hall is? You're now arguing, the legitimacy of the most 'authoritive source'. GoodDay 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The authors of the three sources we currently have do not opine on whether or not Rideau Hall is a monarchical residence, they assert its role as the Monarch's home in Canada as a fact. The Gov't website doesn't mention this; thus it neither confirms nor denies it. I'm therefore not arguing the Gov't website's legitimacy at all. --G2bambino 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
All three of us agree, that RH is at least the official residence of the Governor General, let's go with that. What's the point of having the article protected (do to edit wars), and having valued editors (G2bambino and LonewolfBC) blocked for 'continued reversions'. This UK, first among equals VS All are equal conflict among Commonwealth related articles, has got to end. GoodDay 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Why suppress facts supported by cited material? Is that not censorship?
This has little to nothing to do with the equality of the Realms issue. --G2bambino 16:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy 'edit warring'. GoodDay 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
GoodDay, permitting all of Lonewolf's edits while denying all of mine is the exact opposite of a compromise. C'mon. --G2bambino 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not denied 'all' of yours. I accept your view, that the RH is the GG's official residence. However, try this ..official residence of the Governor General of Canada, the Canadian Monarch's represenative... After all the GG is the Canadian Monarch's represenative. Note- I didn't say 'British Monarch's' represenative (I'm sure Tharky, would like that). GoodDay 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I considered that earlier, but it still represses the point that Rideau Hall is also the monarch's residence in Ottawa.
Lonewolf's main beef originally was that though the house is the home of the monarch, the monarch is there so infrequently that the fact somehow doesn't deserve to be mentioned. I attempted to address his valid point about the GG being the primary occupant while still pointing out the palace is the Queen's home in Ottawa, regardless of where else in the world she is; would my cottage, if I had one, cease to be one of my homes because I only live there a couple of weeks a year? Thus, I thought I had put forward a compromise. Now, however, Lonewolf's sole mission is to censor the fact that Rideau Hall is EIIR's residence in the Canadian capital. How can we compromise on that? --G2bambino 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Gee, my compromise edit lasted 'roughly' a minute (is that a record, here?). Seriously though, happy 'edit warring' - posterity has noted, I tried to help, but was unsucessful. Sorry, for letting you guys down. GoodDay 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, but it didn't address the issue at all and still censored information. --G2bambino 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'll wait and see if 'LonewolfBC' accepts my compromise (afterall, he deserves a 'say' aswell). GoodDay 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What you offer isn't a compromise. It's a rehashed version of what Lonewolf wants: suppression of facts. --G2bambino 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
We haven't heard from LonewolfBC, yet. Be patient and comment afterwards. GoodDay 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Lonewolf is more than welcome to chip in. But, let's not confuse the debate by calling something what it isn't. --G2bambino 17:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually (dare I comment), LBC prefers to not mention the Canadian Monarch. You prefer to mention the Canadian Monarch (prominantly). I've taken the 'middle road' - mentioning the Canadian Monarch in a 'secondary style' (which seems to lead back to, your phobia of UK, firs among equals. GoodDay 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand me then. My motivation is not to see any arbitrary mention of the Monarch, but instead mention of the fact that Rideau Hall is the Monarch's home in Ottawa, albeit primarily used as the GG's home. Your attempted "compromise" merely elaborated on the GG's role as vice-regal while removing mention of the Hall being the Monarch's residence all-together.
I'm not completely against mentioning the monarch second (though it does seem odd), but all proposals have either completely removed any mention of the sovereign, or creatively asserted the Queen stays as a guest (as though she were subordinate to the GG!). --G2bambino 18:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::Now, that looks better. GoodDay 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC) ::OK, that looks even better. Still waiting on LwBC's opinon. GoodDay 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Protection' was inevitable & needed. As I've 'harped' before, edit warring doesn't solve a thing. GoodDay 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh, sure. But does your scratching out of your previous comment mean you now don't approve of the current wording? --G2bambino 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've chosen to give 'both' opposing editors a chance to work things out. Here's my 'last' compromise edit proposal - for you & LwBC to consider - Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Canadian Monarch's represenative, the Governor General of Canada. PS- The sooner both of you 'agree', the sooner this article will be 'unlocked' for everyone.
Nope; that again ignores the cited fact that the house is the Monarch's residence in Ottawa. The sooner people stop simply ignoring referenced material because they don't like it the sooner this article will be unblocked. --G2bambino 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Assuming Wikipedia is suppose to be the 'laymens' Encyclopedia; whenever the Canadian Prime Minister & cabinet resigns ,followed by the swearing in of the newly appointed Prime Minster & cabinet, these events are discribed as occuring at the GG's official residence (not the Queen's). GoodDay 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
All assumptions aside; so what? --G2bambino 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Using my 'edit' (which is straight forward & simple), would be more presentable to the 'unfamiliar' reader. GoodDay 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
But we don't edit Wikipedia to conform to the ignorance of others. I'd imagine people don't come here to read about what they already know. --G2bambino 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You're determined to describe Rideau Hall as the Canadian Monarch's official residence. LwBC (who's apparently decided -discussion- is pointless, by not commenting), is determined to keep Rideau Hall from being described as such. Such conflicting PoVs has condemned this page to being locked from other editors. Congradulations, both of you. GoodDay 22:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
But, of course; that's what other knowledgeable people have said it is. Please stop speaking as though this is some kind of invention out of my own head.
As for Lonewolf: his original problem seemed to be not that the house was described as the Queen's Canadian residence, but that this fact came before mention of the GG's occupancy. The article has been altered to address this, perhaps valid, complaint. Thus, to me, the problem's already solved. --G2bambino 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If you feel dispute between you & LwfBC has ended, request 'unprotection' for this page. GoodDay 22:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to; but I think we should give it time. A couple of days at least; I certainly don't think it should last the full two weeks. (At least, I hope not!) --G2bambino 22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me as I prey please LwfBC accept, please LwfBC accept, oh wait, I'm atheist. A couple of days it is. GoodDay 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, time, of which I lack enough to do all that I might wish.
This is mostly just to register my continued interest and, sorry to say, disagreement. I don't have time for much more just now, but I want to dispell any notions to the contrary that might be creeping in. Sorry, but the article had better stay locked for the time being. I'm sure that this can be sorted out before long, though.
Just as a general comment, meanwhile: Please try to look at these discussions less ephemerally. We're supposed to be producing an encyclopedia, not settling a bar-room bet. Stepping away from the blow-by-blow of a discussion briefly (yes, briefly, on a properly longer-term view) should not be construed as a loss of interest or as aquiescence, especially in one who has contributed very substantially to the discussion in the form of a few thoughtful, longer posts. -- Lonewolf BC 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be 'unprotected' (on August 10) for the sake of other editors. Meanwhile, G2b and LwfBC can continue to 'discuss' on this talk page (making no further reverts) their -proposed- edits. GoodDay 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds promising, but I have my serious doubts. --G2bambino 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime - should a 'reversion' occur- I'll re-add my 'compromise edit' (which should remain, until the opposing parties reach an agreement at the talk page). It's best the article remain stable (with compromise edit), instead of jumping back-and-forth (with opposing edits). It'll only be 'until' the two of you reach an agreement. GoodDay 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
GoodDay - your "compromise edit" isn't a compromise at all, and your adding it will simply inflame the situation. I realise you're trying to be a peace broker of sorts, and I appreciate your input, but with this particular edit of yours, you're actually working against me. --G2bambino 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Try this ..is the residence of the Governor General of Canada, represenative of the Canadian Monarch... Note - By leaving out official, I'm neither claiming it's the GG's or the Queen's official residence. GoodDay 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not much different to what you proposed earlier. Again, my concern doesn't surround the use of the term "official"; it is over the mentioning of the fact that the house is the Queen's residence in Ottawa.
Where I suspect this will come down to, when Lonewolf decides to join the conversation again, is where the fact should be mentioned. My opinion stands as: instead of disjointedly separating the two points about the GG and Queen, with the GG coming paragraphs before any mention of the Queen's claim on the Hall, the two facts, being correlated, should follow one another. As the GG is indeed the primary occupant, I can accept that he/she come first, followed by the fact that the Hall is EIIR's Ottawa residence. This flows better and makes more sense, in my opinion. --G2bambino 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's the best I can do. I'm gonna add it when the page is 'unprotected' (if reverted, I won't re-add it). The rest is up to the two of you. PS- if the 'compromise edit' bothers both of you, just have the Administrator revert it (no need 'wasting' a revert on me). GoodDay 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Do as you please, I suppose. But I wonder: if you know your insertion won't be accepted, why bother? --G2bambino 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me if it is or not, that's up to you guys. GoodDay 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Locked

I have locked the wrong version for two weeks in the hope that the edit-warring on this article will stop and suitable time is available for y'all to reach some form of consensus. Good Luck! -- Avi 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, with the article locked, perhaps now the disputing parties LwBC & G2B can 'iron out' a resolution. My 'compromise version' wasn't helping. GoodDay 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, should G2b & LwfBC begin 'edit warring' again, after this page is 'unprotected', they may both have to be 'blocked'. Even if they don't make more then 3-reverts within 24hrs (which 'blocking' is possible as they were previously blocked for 3RR breaching). Sorry guys, innocent editors shouldn't suffer from your 'head butting'. GoodDay 19:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Edits

Since we've got 'til August 22 - to try an iron out things, here's my originally idea. Let's respect the 'layman's' understanding & avoid the legal mumbo jumbo. This is my re-introduced compromise -
..official residence of the Governor General of Canada, who's the represenative of the Canadian Monarch in Canada...
Example: Harper was sworn in as Canadian PM at the GG's official residence NOT the Queen's. Take it or leave guys. GoodDay 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said: leave it. 1) Hides the fact it's the Queen's residence in Ottawa; 2) unnecessarily elaborates on the GG's role, which isn't really relevant to her house; 3) laymen don't dictate Wikipedia content. --G2bambino 16:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It's being left alone (until page unprotection). 1)Actually it's the Canadian taxpayers residence in Ottawa; 2)Does elaborate correctly the GG's role (PM & cabinet transitions example); 3)legal beagles, constititional scholars don't dictate Wikipedia content either. PS- there's more 'layman' readers out there, then scholars. GoodDay 17:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1) Well, in a sense, yes. But then so is 24 Sussex Drive, and any other official government residence. Ditto for Buck House in the UK. So, this doesn't dismiss the fact that it's the Queen's residence in Ottawa.
2) It's correct, certainly. But is it necessary? I'm quite ambivalent if it stays or goes, but it seems to be being suggested as simply a way to fit in the word "monarch" without addressing my actual point r.e. the mentioning of Rideau Hall being the Queen's residence in Ottawa.
3) No, we, of course, dictate Wikipedia content. However, because something is commonly known or said doesn't mean it trumps other little known facts. If that was the case Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom would be Elizabeth II of England (there's even a redirect page there!). This is why I now agree that the monarchical part should be present as a brief mention second to the GG's occupancy, which is exactly what sits in the article now. --G2bambino 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have dropped this for a spell, but I cannot do everything at once, and am less prolific in post-numbers than many other editors. I have not lost interest.
I would accept GoodDay's "compromise" edit, as an interim measure, until a proper consensus can be reached, for the sake of getting the article unlocked and available for other editing. I would not wish to see the article's lead become fixed in that form, though. It would need to be clearly understood and agreed that no one (especially not myself or G.) would edit the lead back to any form substantially the same as one of the versions put forward by either "side" of the dispute, unless and until there is a consensus. Meanwhile the interim compromise would stand. -- Lonewolf BC 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all I'm asking for. My compromise is just a 'interim edit'; it's purpose is to allow the page to be 'unprotected' while you guys iron out a resolution. My edits aren't written in 'stone' (in fact no edit is, since there's millions of Wiki editors). Come on G2, it's only 'temporary'. GoodDay 15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've asked the 'protecting' Administrator, to insert my interim compromise edit (the recent edit is 'too disputed'). LonewolfBC & Myself have accepted it as an 'interim' edit. GoodDay 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter; any edit will only be an interim edit. --G2bambino 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite true, considering there's thousands of Wiki editors. GoodDay 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlocking

As it seems that y'all think you can now approach this article on a more even keel, I will unlock the page. I will have it watchlisted, however -- Avi 14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember guys, no edit warring. GoodDay 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Applied

As this is my last edit to the article (concerning this topic) -- I hope it's non-acceptance as a permanent solution (by G2bambino & LonewolfBC), will further encourage them to seek a resolution on the talk page. Remember folks, no edit warring (where've I heard that advice before?). GoodDay 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Describing this last edit as a "compromise" is actually extremely disingenuous. Far from a common, non-partisan edit, it actually achieves Lonewolf's later (revised) goal without him actually having to make any changes to the article himself. This sets things up so as to make it appear that any edit I make will be one that breaks this misnamed "compromise."
Just so it's clear, what I next insert will be what I see as something that actually does take a number of Lonewolf's concerns - at least those he originally expressed here and those he has brought up elsewhere - as well as my own. I will not be reneging on any compromise at all. --G2bambino 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
G., there is a difference between a thing's being unsatisfactory to you and its not being a compromise. The compromise-edit is not satisfactory to me, either.
That aside, your understanding of my views and aims is seriously in error, so that any edit you made that purports to address my concerns would certainly fail to do so. Plainly, under the circumstances we need to work this out on the talkpage before making edits to the article. Meanwhile the compromise should stand as an "armistice term", not really satisfactory to either of us. -- Lonewolf BC 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
As you tend to act much more than you communicate, I must extrude your desires from your actions. Though your first concern - expressed above - was that the monarchical aspect of Rideau Hall was given undue prominence, your following actions were to repeatedly remove mention of the house being the Monarch's Ottawa residence all-together. That is exactly what GoodDay has done, and thus it seems his "compromise" has achieved your goal.
If you now purport to not be opposed to the presence of mention of Rideau Hall's status as a royal residence, then the conflict between your actions and your spoken concerns does indeed leave me very confused. --G2bambino 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I communicate quite well and thoroughly. The trouble is that you tend not to pay attention, or at least so it seems from your non-responsive replies.
As you'd know if you had read my remarks up to this point for comprehension, at first I thought that "monarch's residence" was just being given too high a profile in relation to its importance among the Hall's functions, although it might be true. That's "might". I've never been convinced that it is true, although on cursory examination of the thing, I was inclined to think that the putative fact was obscure and unimportant but technically true. Having looked into the matter further -- the scarcity and poor quality of the sources (as sources on this particular point, at least), and the lack of mention in official sources and standard reference works, and the giving of contrary information (see Makepeace's post, below) in the official Rideau Hall website -- I think that "monarch's residence" is just an eccentric claim made by monarchists, deserving of no more than a footnote saying that some authors have made the claim, while noting the counter-indications. -- Lonewolf BC 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the record here stands; you made few comments and many reverts. I paid good attention to the comments and what was reverted; hence I already stated what you just repeated above. It seems, though, that your sporadic comments in edit summaries and on other talk pages are at least starting to gel here, in one place. Which is a step, at least, in the right direction.
In response to what you've just spelled out, I'll say exactly what I did in an earlier reply to you at another talk page: The sources meet WP:RS. As such they can be used as sources for the information being inserted.
Other sources do not mention the same fact. Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying these sources matter more than the ones I have because you think they do, and because they don't mention the fact my sources do, the fact therefore isn't true. Well, again, you are deciding what work is more valid than the others. I rather think that's your POV, and I also doubt that a website necessarily trumps published parliamentary journals or historical accounts written by official historians and archivists. Perhaps those who put together the websites you refer to don't know the royal role of Rideau Hall, or, maybe don't want it to be known. That doesn't mean what the sources I've provided say is wrong.
I'll add to that the fact that JDM's website doesn't contradict anything at all.
I have no problem with pointing out in the article that Rideau Hall's status as the Monarch's residence in Ottawa (or, perhaps the more ambiguous term "seat") is a little mentioned point. But given the reliability of the sources, the point cannot be censored. --G2bambino 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My record is what it is -- and there it is, only a little above (plus in the usual user-history pages, etc.). Other readers can form their own impressions of it. Your impression of it is cock-eyed, in my opinion. There's no use in our arguing the point. Please avoid these sorts of ad hominem tangents. You are free to think badly of me, of how I've gone about things, or of both, but please keep such thoughts out of the editorial discussion. Focus on the issue, not the person. This is not (or oughtn't be) a contest to see who can cast whom as the greater villain.

Your sources do not meet the requirements of "reliable source" with respect to the particular point in question. Your saying that they do does not make it so. Neither does my saying that they do not make that so. Instead, we must examine them, and determine whether they do or do not meet the requirements. I suggest that we also invite outside opinion, as we may never agree, between the two of us alone. Meanwhile your insistence that your sources are reliable ones on this particular point merely begs the question.

By the way, I'm glad that you've moved this discussion to here, from Official Residence, whereas this is the best place for it. I was going to do the same myself, but you've been swifter. (You seem much more prolific in your WP-doings than I am in mine -- indeed, more so than most others; I sometimes wonder how one person manages it.)

-- Lonewolf BC 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You first go on about how seriously I misunderstand your aims; and yet, when I explain that your aims are misunderstood because you previously haven't communicated them through much more than curt summaries to your straight deletions, your response is to accuse me of resorting to ad homonyms? To the contrary, behaviour and attitude has been a central - if not the root cause - of this dispute (and others); less of your holier-than-thou attitude and more cooperation would have led to a much different result. As privately expressed comments and concerns about your actions that aren't sugar coated enough for your palette (could they ever be?) are simply shoveled off to your infantile "toxic waste dump," there's no choice but to express myself publicly. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
As WP:RS: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The publications are trustworthy and the authors are authoritative (though I will grant you that the Aimers piece is the least of the three, but still meets WP:RS requirements). The subject is Rideau Hall and its royal associations. The sources speak of Rideau Hall and its royal associations. The sources are being used to support one particular sentence in the article; they are not being used as the sole sources on which this article in its entirety is built.
If you want to start and RfC about this, be my guest. But, I don't think it's worth your while to attack the validity of the sources; to my mind this is a compositional matter and time is better spent authoring a sentence or two that will communicate all the information succinctly, accurately, and with due proportional weight - which is why I, some time ago, tried to start to recompose the opening sentences to accommodate the then expressed concerns. As I've said elsewhere, I can see it as maybe worthwhile to explain the infrequency of the mention of the fact that Rideau Hall is the Queen's Ottawa residence - or home, or seat, or what-have-you. Perhaps we can be specific with who exactly has said it is the Monarch's house in Ottawa. I'm not precisely sure just now, but that's what I think needs worked out. --G2bambino 19:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It has now been 7 days since the non-compromise "compromise" edit was done, and 6 days since the main objector's last contribution here. Given this stagnancy, I will move to make an edit that addresses Lonewolf's valid (or, at least those proven as such) criticisms. --G2bambino 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

G., a few days is not "stagnancy". Please wait till we've finished examining the sources. In essence, as you should know, I don't think there good reason to suppose that any of them are reliable on the supposed status of Rideau Hall as an official monarch's residence. I hope to find the time this weekend. -- Lonewolf BC 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Six days is not a few days. Still, I hope what I've done is satisfactory to most people; it now says that the hall has been described, though rarely, as the Monarch's official Canadian residence. The sources provided certainly back up that statement. --G2bambino 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Breaking my silence, I'm in agreement with G2's edit. Nobody can argue that RH has been 'rarely described' as the Canadian monarch's official residence (Ps- I've also agreed with G2's edit at Official residence article). GoodDay 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The sources for G2bambino's edits were very old. Being sarcastic does not help. --Dlatimer (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Then stop being sarcastic. Once you've done that, read all the sources. And, once that's done, point us to Wikipedia's expiry date for sources. --G2bambino (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Subtantial debate continued

The Governor General's Web site[1] states: "The Queen, other royal visitors and foreign heads of State stay at Rideau Hall when they visit Ottawa." (emphasis mine) Jonathan David Makepeace 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I must confess, during the dissolution of the 39th Parliament (on Sept 7,2008)? Rideau Hall was never described as the Queen's official residence. It was described as the Governors General. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter K Burian 16:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC) I modified the Rideau Hall entry today with a discussion of Is it owned by the monarch? with many citations. This is still a point in debate. I have not found any Government of Canada publications that ever refer to it as such. Always as the GG's residence. However, others do claim that it is owned by the queen, and their arguments are somewhere logica ... so that does need to be discussed. (The issue became quite significant in 2010 when the Governor General's spouse said the Queen should stay in a hotel; covered in one of the new citations that I added.) And visits from the royal family in Canada are a big deal and quite frequent. [2]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Parl was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_royal_tours_of_Canada_(21st_century)
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_royal_tour_of_Canada

Queen's official residence

Hiya Lonewolf. It was agreed (months ago) to include the Queen. I don't like it personally, but that what we agreed to. If ya still disagree, take it here (please). GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's with the edit war? It's not even content being changed, just the refs. Err...how about we add both? --Cameron* 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good question. You will note that neither of the two doing the reverting on one side have offered here any insight into their motivations or their grievances. --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The content has been changed (sligthly). Now it reads that RH is the monarch's official residence only when she's in Canada. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we write, according to some sources 'insert option 1' and according to other sources 'insert option 2'?

--Cameron* 15:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a quite definitive source which makes plain that the monarch officially resides at RH only when she is in Ottawa, specifically. This is such a minuscule part of the time that it should not be mentioned as one of the first things about RH. I'd be okay with having it as a footnote, if it is to appear early on in the article. I'd prefer that instead it get a passing mention somewhere farther down in the text. This is much like G2's inaugural "Canada is a kingdom" edit, back when he was using "gbambino" as his handle -- it's not a mere question of fact, but of presentation of facts in fitting order and with fitting relative emphasis. The monarch's-Ottawa-residence (when and only when the monarch is in Ottawa) aspect is a curious tid-bit about RH, not part of its main functions, which is why it is scarcely ever mentioned in material about RH.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept anything, that'll end the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the refs changing, precisely. Some are arguing that the bit about it being EIIR's official residence in Canada should be removed entirely (wrong), some that it should be relegated to a footnote (probably wrong; Crown of Maples is unambiguous), some that it should be in the main text. I tend towards the latter camp, as it is strictly speaking true and well supported by CoM. I'm fairly certain that there are no sources which say it isn't her official Canadian residence. Prince of Canada t | c 15:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The only stinker is (for example) when Parliament is dissovled & thus RH takes center stage - its described as the GG's official residence 'only' (the content, ..when the Queen's in Canada... solves the problem, though). Guess we can forgive CTV & CBC for their (not always perfect) coverage. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why that's a "stinker", GD. The palace is the Governor General's residence; CTV is correct. It's just that it is also, though less frequently used as, the monarch's Canadian residence. That's just added detail that probably wasn't relevant to political coverage by the media. --G2bambino (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, don't call it a palace (not while I'm eating). GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is one. But, I'll wait 'till you're done before I say so again. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm finished, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Objections

I've begun this sub-section to direct Lonewolf BC here. Afterall, we all know he's eager to discuss his objections to Roux & G2bambino's edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We should probably keep this discussion in one place. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll read my edit-summaries, my objection is plain. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but where's the other editors who protest G2 & Roux's edits? GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It was made clear to me elsewhere that edit summaries are not considered to be discussion. --G2bambino (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries are a form of discussion, as they are the place where you make known the rationale behind your edit. Most minor points are resolved through use of edit summaries - when you can explain in less than 200 or so characters of text. Edit summaries are not a form of discussion when there is a dispute - that takes place on the talk page. If your edit summary is not sufficiently conveying your point and your edits get reverted, it's incumbent on you to go to the talk page - if not sooner. If you find yourself reverting more than once, that is also a good sign that you need to open discussion on the talk page. Franamax (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Compromise? Change so that the last sentence of the lede says "Rideau Hall is the official residence of the Monarch when in Canada" - with appropriate links and sources. This establishes a notable fact about RH without giving it undue weight - still in the lede, just not right up front in the lede. Can everyone live with it? Franamax (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the need to split comment about the house's residents into two separate, disjointed sentences. We could attempt to rework the lead so that mention of who resides at Rideau Hall comes later, but, the primary purpose of the palace is to be a residence. --G2bambino (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Franamax:

Rideau Hall is, since 1867, the official residence of the Governor General of Canada. It stands at One Sussex Drive, on an 0.36 km² (88 acre) estate, the main building consisting of 175 rooms in 9,500 m² (102,000 ft²), with 24 outbuildings around the grounds. While in many countries the equivalent building has a prominent, central place in the national capital (Buckingham Palace, the White House and the Royal Palace of the Netherlands are examples), Rideau Hall's site is relatively unobtrusive within Ottawa, giving it more of the character of a private home.[2]

Most of Rideau Hall is used for state affairs, only 500 m² (5,400 ft²) of it being private living quarters.[4] It is the principal workplace of the Governor General, and of the Governor General's staff. When differentiating between the Office of the Governor General and the residential functions of the building, Rideau Hall is sometimes formally termed Government House. It is used to officially receive foreign heads of state and both incoming and outgoing ambassadors and high commissioners to Canada. Rideau Hall is also the official residence of the monarch when in Ottawa, the place where many Canadian awards are presented, where Canadian prime ministers and members of Cabinet are officially sworn in, and where federal writs of election are dropped. The house is also open to tours throughout the year; approximately 200,000 visitors tour Rideau Hall annually.[5]

Bolded for emphasis. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I would call that as pretty much perfect placement (I think there's a backing ref that would move too?). Still in the lede, appropriate weight and precedence for the practical functions of the edifice. Franamax (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There is, yes. I didn't feel like copypasta all the refs :P Any objections? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I find it to be an inferior version of what's there now; but let's see what LW has to say. --G2bambino (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
LoneWolf said earlier, quote, "I'd prefer that instead it get a passing mention somewhere farther down in the text." This is a passing mention and it is further down in the text, while still staying in the lede. I think we can count on his approval; if not, I'm sure he'll voice his disapproval when he comes back next month. This is a good compromise; nobody gets everything, everybody gets something. Franamax agrees that it is 'pretty much perfect'. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Remember Loner, you're always welcomed here, to discuss how the article can be improved (if it can be). GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Recently I came across this: Queen Elizabeth’s 1959 Dominion Day Message. It occurs to me that this might well be of interest to those who have been following the discussion on this page about the status of Government House (Rideau Hall) as the Queen's official residence in Ottawa. I note that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) narrator who introduces the Queen's address describes the building as "her Canadian home". The Queen herself in her speech speaks of "this my home in Ottawa". And the website mentions "her Canadian residence at Rideau Hall".

It appears to me that some people very much dislike certain features (such as the Monarch's status as the Head of State) of Canada's constitutional arrangements. Of course they have a right to their opinion, but what they don't have a right to do is to misrepresent the facts about Canada's constitution in an attempt to spread ignorance and undermine it by stealth. I am not accusing anyone on Wikipedia of doing this, but it seems to me that many in high positions in the Government of Canada have been playing this game for years, as have many in the press. If Canadians wish to change their constitution then by all means let them, but until they do the constitution as it now stands should always be described as it actually is rather than as some would like it to be. I hope that Wikipedia continues in the future to focus in the future not on advancing a political agenda but rather on setting forth as accurately as possible the facts about Canada's constitution (and indeed everything else it treats).

I hope this is of interest, Tillander 07:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter K Burian 16:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Yes, there are many Canadians (though I am not one of this group) who resent the concept that Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada (Sovereign) but she is. (Hey, there are many Brits who want to get rid of their monarchy!) Of course, it is just a formality in Canada, a nicety that was retained after Canada became an independent country. Regardless of one's personal opinion, the listing does need to discuss the queen and the GG as her official representative. Peter K Burian 16:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Due to Peter's recent changes to the article. Perhaps it's best to delete the Canadian monarch from the infobox, as a 'current tenant'. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter K Burian 16:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Yes, that makes sense. I had not found that mention yet, however. Also, I did add a paragraph under Other Buildings re: the newly elected Prime Minister now living at Rideau Cottage. Since the renovations to his official residence will probably take several years, he will be a long term resident. P. Peter K Burian 16:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The Canadian monarch is currently in the infobox, under current tenant. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Tenant: "A person in possession of real property by any right or title." (Oxford dictionary). I hope that helps clear up what "current tenant" means for you. trackratte (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Where's the proof that she lives there, though? GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought we were talking about tenants. trackratte (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
We are. Now, where is she? GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't any idea, I can't see her at the moment. trackratte (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown (via sources) that the Canadian monarch lives/stays at Rideau Hall, on a regular basis? Then IMHO, this article breachs weight. The least that could be done is that nominal be used to describe the monarch's official resident/current tenant status, in the infobox & article content. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In common legal usage, being a tenant means to be "in possession of real property". The possessor of the property in question, Rideau Hall, is the Queen of Canada. Since the Queen is in possession of Rideau Hall (real property), then if the word tenant is to be used (which it shouldn't be), then the tenant is indisputably the Crown. However, since the real property in question is owned by the Crown outright, there is no tenure as instead there is actual ownership.
The terms used within the infobox are for traditional contracts, so they don't actually work upon greater analysis in this case. If there were a lessor/lessee relationship, which there isn't as no one pays rent, the Queen would be both the lessor and lessee in this case. Tenancy comes from the feudal system, where the sovereign owned all lands, and where lords were given tenure in the land (the right of holding title) but never outright ownership as such ownership always remained vested in the Crown. As such the property is in the possession of the Crown, and that is it, there is no tenant and there is no landlord relationship at play here.
Either way, questions of how many units time person x has spent on the property is irrelevant to questions of possession, which is what the concepts of tenancy and ownership centre on. trackratte (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
So she's the official resident & current tenant, in name only. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
No, as I explained there is no tenant, the Crown ("Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada") is the owner. For there to be a tenant, the Crown would have had to have entered into a legal contract with itself to provide itself with right or title to the property for either a fixed or unlimited duration while retaining overall ownership and thus acting as the landlord to itself.
Residence is an entirely separate issue, and it depends on what you mean by it and whose definition you wish to choose. For example, does one mean "permanent residence", "ordinary residence", "temporary residence", or "occasional residence", etc? To take a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada: "But in the different situations of so-called "permanent residence", "temporary residence", "ordinary residence", "principal residence" and the like, the adjectives do not affect the fact that there is in all cases residence; and that quality is chiefly a matter of the degree to which a person in mind and fact settles into or maintains or centralizes his ordinary mode of living with its accessories in social relations, interests and conveniences at or in the place in question. It may be limited in time from the outset, or it may be indefinite, or so far as it is thought of, unlimited. On the lower level, the expressions involving residence should be distinguished, as I think they are in ordinary speech, from the field of "stay" or "visit"."
As the courts have decided that length of "stay" or the concept of "visit" is not attached to the determination of one's "residence", and due to the constitutional nature of the Canadian sovereign, as well as the third-party sources already offered which explicitly state that Rideau Hall is the primary residence of the Queen of Canada, I think it safe to say that this is indeed the case. Whether or not you wish to accept this as 'in name only' (legal fact and not, in practical terms, physically exercises) then you of course are free to do so. But to bring us back from this tangent, residency has no effect on tenancy or ownership so is really irrelevant to the conversation in question. trackratte (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I looked at the infobox template; "tenant" is the only field that seems to be available to list an occupant or occupants. Should we seek to have the template altered to have an "occupant" field? Or something else? After all, it is right to say Rideau Hall has an owner, but not to imply it's unoccupied. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Mies, I do not think we are implying it is unoccupied. As you point out below, the question of occupancy is perhaps a bit of a sticky concept. I think it is a matter much better left to the article, as the infobox is really for headline information only. Does the office of the GG "occupy" the space, or the Heraldic Authority occupy office space as a tenant within the building? What about the wife of the GG? Members of the Royal Family when they are in residence? I think it's a bit of a black hole we'd be better off not going into. trackratte (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that we've got the Queen in right of Canada as the owner. Perhaps we should have underneath that the following - Occupant = Governor General of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, but the governor general only occupies Rideau Hall when he's at Rideau Hall. He spends so much time at hotels and provincial government houses and La Citadelle and off in other countries. You wouldn't qualify him as an occupant of Rideau Hall. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
He's probably hanging out with the Canadian monarch, in the United Kingdom ;) GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It happens. trackratte (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

GPS Coordinates

An anonymous editor revised the coordinates for Rideau cottage without any indication as to where he got that info. I then revised it so it's the same as for Rideau Hall. What is the norm for the coordinates provided on Wikipedia, for a massive property with many buildings and parking lots? The coordinates for Rideau Hall, and now for Rideau Cottage, are for the public parking lot. While that may be off a bit in terms of the location of the front door of a building -- and while a person could get more accurate coordinates if he was allowed onto the porch at Rideau Cottage -- would it be ethical to publish such coordinates? I checked the White House and those coordinates appear to be more specifically for the primary building. Is that appropriate in terms of national security??? (Or are all coordinates off a bit on purpose?) Peter K Burian 04:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is about the coordinates for Rideau Cottage, it shouldn't be discussed here. However, Rideau Cottage and Rideau Hall don't have to share the same coordinates; they're different buildings.
The coordinates at this article take me to the garden just south of Rideau Hall itself. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering about the coordinates for both buildings. The one that Wikipedia had for Rideau Hall is for the parking lot based on the map that is provided. If the coordinates should be more specifically for the building, then they are not exactly accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.156.151 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the Rideau Hall coordinates as a major problem; they land any reader close enough to the building. But, there's nothing wrong, either, with making them more accurate. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Monarch & Governor General sources

We've now got 3 sources for the monarch. I believe we can allow 2 sources for the governor general. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what, again, is your reasoning for needing two references to support a non-controversial claim? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the monarch's status as official resident, is controversial? I don't believe it is. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not an answer to the question I asked. (Also: try the preview button more often before saving.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that the monarch's status as Rideau Hall's official resident is debatable? then by all means, go with just 1 source for the governor general. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
When did you stop beating your wife? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Do either of you realize just how petty this is? GoodDay - I tend to agree with you that we don't *need* more that one cite for a non-controversial claim, but if there is the odd spot where three are used instead, is that really worth battling over? Pick your spots, dude. Miesianical - please bear in mind that inline citations break up the text and interfere with the flow of an article. Being a little more judicious when deciding where multiple cites are required would improve the article. Resolute 15:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's quite alright, Res. We've worked it out :) GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Resolute, I'd like you to go back in the history of this article to between July 2007 and October 2008 to see just how adamantly some users resisted the inclusion in the article proper (if at all) of any suggestion Rideau Hall serves as the Ottawa residence of the Queen. One reference didn't suffice. Three references didn't suffice. Five references didn't suffice. Each of those is but one out of a bout of reverts and only from one editor (even our friend GoodDay joined in the action).
Is nine citations too much for a four or five word long claim? Normally, yes. But, considering the history here, I'd say nine was insurance against any future disruption like was seen before. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been the only individual to delete the monarch from the infobox, in a quite awhile. I didn't put up much of a effort to keep the monarch excluded. BTW, I was the fellow who supported Mies' addition of the monarch into the infobox, against a spirited opposition by Lonewolf BC, all those years ago. TBH, I don't think there'll be alot of attempts by anyone to exclude the monarch this time. Having said that, Mies should consider why there were (in the past) so many attempts at exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The many attempts were made by the same three people and their particular feelings on the monarchy weren't exactly a secret. Given you were one of the three, you might ask yourself why you made "so many" (though less than the other two) attempts at exclusion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
With the exception of my delete a few days ago, those other events occurred years ago. TBH, I would've thought you'd be arguing for less citations on the monarch, as a sign of how strong the claim was/is that the monarch is an official resident of Rideau Hall. But, if so many citations are needed, because the claim is weak & there's a chance that many editors would delete the monarch from the infobox (and lead), then that's a sign that the monarch's inclusion is (possibly) undo weight. Perhaps, we should listen to what the real world is telling us. GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I find your thinking odd and baffling. It's like you're engaged in some other argument.
There doesn't seem to be a point to this argument anymore, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I find your thinking odd and baffling, aswell. Atleast, we're in agreement about how we view each other's thinking. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you decide Resolute about the citations, will be fine by me. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Meis - Issues with three users eight years ago hardly make for a compelling case to engage in citation poisoning now. Especially when one of them hasn't edited in six. I don't think you need to worry so much today about it. Resolute 14:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
TBH, the Canadian monarch being listed as an official resident, current tenant of Rideau Hall, is laughable. How often has Elizabeth II stayed there, during her 63+ year reign. The Canadian monarch (like it or not) resides in the United Kingdom. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a governor general. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Just say "Rideau Hall is, since 1867, one of the official residences of both the Canadian monarch and his or her representative the Governor-General ,"
--Moxy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
We need sources that support the Canadian monarch's being an official resident & current tenant. Does the Canadian monarch reside at Rideau Hall? If one's is the official resident, then one must reside there. PS- I know she wasn't around, when Trudeau & the cabinet were sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
What and odd thing to say,,,,sources are pretty clear on this point perhaps a tour of the building would help....who do you think the master bedroom is for? Do we charge the royals for rent when they show up...no because its their official home as sourced. I own a home that has been rented out for 15 years...never go there but its still my house.-- Moxy (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Sources have also been provided, that don't have the monarch as official resident. Thing is, as things stand now, the article gives the impression that the Canadian monarch actually lives at Rideau Hall. I'd recommend the word nominal be used, in this situation. She's there in name, rarely in body. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
We should should word it like the sources ..."Rdeau Hall, officially the Queen's royal residence when in Canada, is home the Governor-General", Moxy (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"...when in Canada...", would be more accurate indeed. Mind you, she's very rarely in Canada ;) GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Moxy, an official residence remains an official residence regardless of where the owner is at any given moment. The status of Rideau Hall doesn't legally change based on the location of the Canada's monarch, so the status of whether or not the Queen is physically within Canada's borders or not is irrelevant. Second, due to the legal and constitutional nature of the governor general, the "Crown" is resident within Rideau Hall via the governor general. As the Crown is a corporation sole and is legally inseparable from the person of the sovereign, the Queen is (constitutionally speaking) the legal occupant. Thus, the official residence of the Queen of Canada/Canadian Crown/Queen's representative is all the same thing. trackratte (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be "when in Ottawa", as the Queen often stays at hotels and other government houses in Canada, outside of Ottawa.
But, that can be said absolutely equally for the Governor General. Rideau Hall is his residence in Ottawa. He leaves Ottawa quite a lot. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)When talking about physical occupancy, the only correct form would be "when in Rideau Hall". Bit irrelevant I think, as we're not talking about physical occupancy at any given point in time within the article, only questions of ownership and residency. trackratte (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Do we have any records on the average amounts of hours per day, that a Governor General spends at Rideau Hall? We could compare that with the number of hours per day, that the Monarch spends at Rideau Hall. Just a guess, but I'm assuming the GG spends more time. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Number of hours spent on a given property is irrelevant to ownership, occupancy, residency, and tenancy. If you want to spend the time, be by guest, but it would be an excellent example of an exercise in futility. trackratte (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
We need to show to the readers, the Governor General & family, occupies the place. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
No, we need to show to readers that it is the official residence of the Governor General of Canada, which we already do in the lead sentence. The person filling the role of governor general may or may not occupy the building at any given time, or may choose never to "move in" at all. In any event, physical occupancy has nothing to do with the status of the building and grounds once so ever. If you want to talk about the current governor general's living habits, do so at David Johnston's wiki page. trackratte (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I shall have to disagree with you. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay. trackratte (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I wouldn't seriously suggest using "when in Rideau Hall"; that would be redundant. I was making a point about inaccuracies and or inconsistencies that would follow from any claim Rideau Hall is the Queen's residence only when she's in Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the term "official residence" in the lede sentence blue links to its article which reads "An official residence is the residence at which a nation's head of state, head of government, governor or other senior figure officially resides. It may or may not be the same location where the individual conducts work-related functions, or actually lives." trackratte (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We need to make it clear to readers, that the Monarch & the Governor General aren't residing at Rideau Hall, at the same time. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that would be purposefully misleading. There's nothing prohibiting both individuals from occupying the residence at the same time besides their own personal preferences. trackratte (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I shall have to disagree with you. The article currently suggests the Monarch & Governor General are bodily co-occupying Rideau Hall, on a regular basis. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Which sentence? trackratte (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. We've got 2 discussions going on simultaneously. I meant the occupant stuff for the infobox. For the content lead, ..."when in Canada..." should be used for the Monarch. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no occupant stuff in the infobox. trackratte (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I know. There should be. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
So, your entire argument right now is that the "article currently suggests the Monarch & Governor General are bodily co-occupying Rideau Hall", and when asked what part of the article suggests that, you state the "occupant stuff in the infobox", and when pointed out that there is no "occupant stuff in the infobox" to mislead readers, you state there should be. trackratte (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Bienvenue au discours avec GoodDay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
May we have that in english? GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Ouais ... je pense que j'avais assez pour l'instant, ça va attendre demain. Bonne soirée. trackratte (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's hope that you both will stop posting in the French language, as it's in bad taste. I don't understand or read french & would prefer you both use english in this discussion. I believe it's required on English Wikipedia's article talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies folks. But the intro to this article still gives the false impression that the Monarch & Governor General are co-occupying Rideau Hall on a regular basis. We need the wording changed to show that the Governor General resides there much more frequently then the Monarch. Otherwise (IMHO), the intro is in breach of weight. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The word "occupy" isn't mentioned a single time in the entire article. It says that Rideau Hall is the Official residence, and it's blue-linked so it is abundantly clear to readers. This "impression" of yours is nowhere supported in the article, and forms yet another example or your clearly stated republican POV pushing. trackratte (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
If you can't assume good faith & hold off from personal attacks. Then, perhaps you should leave the discussion. Anyways, I've stated my concerns, so let others check them over. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There are limits. If you legitimately believe there is an issue of false information, point it out and we will work on it. As of yet, when asked point blank, what part of the article gives this 'false impression', you referred to something which doesn't even exist, and then when told that it doesn't exist, you said it should. So, feel free to point out which sentence is incorrect, and we'll work to resolve it, instead of simply pushing your republican point of view, particularly as you openly admit that that is your goal. trackratte (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, please AGF & stop accusing me of pushing a republican PoV. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Your point of view is a statement of fact. Nothing inherently wrong with it, but we have to be cognizant of it nonetheless. In any event, have a very good night! Cheers. trackratte (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm a Canadian republican? So what? Where's the proof that I'm pushing my politics on this article? I haven't called for the Monarch or Governor General to be deleted & both replaced by a President. What's you point? GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace?

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau meeting Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace? Maybe he was meeting the Queen of the United Kingdom, instead of the Queen of Canada (the latter residing at Rideau Hall, of course) or maybe CBC news made an error & this meeting actually took place at Rideau Hall. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure Justin Trudeau isn't the British PM? He is at Buckingham Palace after all. trackratte (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rideau Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rideau Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rideau_Hall/Archive_1&oldid=1222350859"